[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 141 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9354-H9355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             REIMPORTATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday in USA Today they ran a 
story, ``Once Just a Trickle, Canada's Rx drugs pouring into the United 
States'' and predicting that it is now coming close to $1 billion worth 
of business where people are buying their medications, name brand 
drugs, from Canada. And why? Because the same drugs that we have 
developed here, the name brand drugs, are in Canada for 40 to 50 
percent cheaper than they are at our local pharmacy and drugstore. We 
cannot afford the drugs we need, and we are not doing enough here in 
Washington to help make that medication accessible.
  We passed a piece of legislation back in July with 88 Republican 
votes and 153 Democratic votes that brought competition and choice to 
the pricing of pharmaceutical medications. Today if one went to Europe 
and Canada for the same medications dealing with blood pressure, 
cholesterol, heart disease, those medications are 40 or 50 percent 
cheaper than they are in the United States. Why? Because in those 
countries they have competition, and it makes the prices go down. If we 
brought competition and choice to the market, we could actually have 
the type of prices that are being afforded right now in both Canada and 
in Europe.
  A couple statistics that are so important that people should know, a 
recent Families USA study found that prices of the 50 drugs most 
commonly used by seniors increased by three and a half times the rate 
of inflation. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on 
prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. Seventy-one percent of 
Americans think it should be legal to purchase their medications in 
Canada, in Europe, France, England, and Germany where prices, again, 
are cheaper than they are here at home. We are asking our folks here in 
this country to pay a premium price, the most expensive price in the 
world, not the best price; and we have an obligation to help them get 
the best price, not the most expensive price.
  My governor from Illinois and governors in Minnesota and in Iowa have 
decided to study what the savings would be to their taxpayers and their 
consumers if they were to buy medications competitively. Those studies 
in short order will be out, and I think the Members will see that 
tremendous savings could be accomplished for the taxpayers in those 
States.
  That is relevant to what we do here on the prescription drug bill. If 
we are about to spend $400 billion of the taxpayers' money on the 
largest expansion in over 40 years on Medicare, we owe an obligation 
not only to the seniors who will get it but to the taxpayers who will 
pay it to get them the best price, not the most expensive price; and we 
want to use the free market principle of competition to bring prices 
down and to give consumers the choice that they need.
  What I find interesting is that we have a $1 billion business today 
going on. The FDA does not think there is anything wrong with it but 
all of a sudden has been lately lip-syncing the pharmaceutical 
industry's line by saying that there is an issue of safety. Yet they 
will not in any way try to deal with clamping down or stopping folks 
from buying those medications because they do not really believe there 
is a safety issue. The fact is on March 27, 2003, when the FDA 
testified in front of a congressional committee, when asked

[[Page H9355]]

if has anybody has ever been sick, if anybody ever been found to be 
sick, not one person has ever gotten sick by purchasing medications, 
name brand medications, from Canada.
  The second argument that the industry puts out is somehow it will 
affect the research and development for new medications. The fact is 
the taxpayers, through the National Institutes of Health, have funded 
research into pharmaceutical drugs for $27 billion a year. Second, they 
write off all their R&D investment and the taxpayers cover for them.
  In my view, the taxpayers have been tremendously generous to the 
industry and to the development of new drugs and that all the new 
drugs, if we take a look at cancer, AIDS drugs, other types of 
medications, they have all been funded by taxpayer-paid research. So 
first the strawman made the argument about safety. In fact, the 
legislation we passed here in the House improved the safety by dealing 
with counterfeit.
  Another issue is that somehow it impacts the development of new 
medication, life-saving medications. The fact is it does not touch it. 
I think we will maintain the tax credit for research and development, 
and we will continue to fund the National Institutes of Health to the 
tune of $27 billion, and the taxpayers have been quite generous. In 
fact, what they are owed is a return on their investment.
  So what I believe, and would hope that others have seen this article 
and know what they are having in their own district and as the 
conference meets here on the prescription drug bill, is that any piece 
of legislation that does not deal with price does not deal with the 
primary issue affecting the senior community and that we have an 
obligation to get them the best price and get the taxpayers the best 
price we can get them through a prescription drug bill that allows the 
free market to work. Because for too long we have had a closed market 
here. We need to open up the market and allow the principle of 
competition to work.
  Second, and I think in addition to that, is that we talk about 
expanding Medicare. We need to ensure that for that $400 billion we get 
the most for our money. Everybody today knows if they go to any senior 
center and talk to folks they will tell them, because there is somebody 
from their senior home who has gone over the border, gone into Canada 
and bought prescriptions filled out for everybody in the unit or 
everybody at the housing project, they have bought medications. We have 
turned our grandparents into drug runners, and that should not be 
illegal because what they are trying to do is meet the obligations they 
have for their own health.
  For too long we have all heard stories of people who have cut 
medications in half, skipped a month so their spouse can get the 
medications they need. That is a health and safety risk.
  This legislation that was passed out of this Congress with bipartisan 
majority would address that health and safety risk. It would address 
the need of our taxpayers who are more than willing to help get a 
prescription drug bill but not do it when we are paying inflated 
prices, sometimes as high as 60 percent, to the pharmaceutical 
industry. If someone takes one medication like Tamoxifen, which costs 
$360 here in the United States, it fights what? Breast cancer. In 
Canada, it costs $33.62. That is the difference, and it means life or 
death for a lot of the people here in this country.
  I call on the conference to quickly pass a prescription drug bill 
that has this reimportation provision and ask that my colleagues look 
at the article the other day in USA Today.

                          ____________________